Now, we imagine that the CBI is funded by it's membership so they're not actually spending public money. But, they do make grand announcements that impact on public money being spent by others. Take the Tweet above, from @CBItweets on 6 March.

Shock, horror and self flagellation - we are failing young people in primary school as science is being squeezed out of the curriculum. Here at Coch Towers, we don't automatically disagree with the sentiment of this post - but the stats, that's a different question.

The accompanying "info" graphic (we put "info" in "" as it seems very graphic and little "info" really) shows a different picture.

From the graphic: 53% support the claim that "science has become less a priority", but 47% clearly don't. 53% vs 47% - or 6% more. Now, from the CBI web site (here) this survey was actually undertaken by 260 primary teachers. So, this 6% difference corresponds to 15 teachers.

So, out another way: Out of 260 teachers, 15 more said "science has become less a priority" than said either "it hadn't changed or it was more a priority"

Not a glowing endorsement or an overwhelming call to arms.

Cerdyn Coch calls for all infographics like this to have the population size on the chart - after all, 8 out of 10 cats think its a good idea (based on a survey of 7 cats)

The header image above comes from the blog of the leader of Cardiff City Council, Cllr Phil Bale. Now we're not sure if Cllr Bale actually pens this column himself, but for the record, you can check it out here.

Skipping over the almost inevitable post about "teaching young people to code", almost like it's going to be the magic panacea that "solves all Wales' problems" and the cheeky item about "Youth Innovation Grants", we find ourselves reading about all things green and eco-trendy.

Under the heading "Greener Granegetown" we read a lovely spin rich item about the £2m of public money being spent on a "new approach to managing rainwater" - fair play - but where are the details? Where's the link so we can investigate? No, nothing - just a date on the 10th June, attend a public meeting (which we can't as we work shifts). This blog has linked to other council pages, extending the spin - but how about a link to some documentation on how this £2m of public money is being spent?

We then find out about the £2.7m being spent on energy generation from the River Taff, where we are hit with the factoids "generate enough sustainable electricity to power 550 homes – as well as providing the Council with around £140,000 in income each year." Here at Cerdyn Coch, we wonder how true this statement is or do Cardiff Council suffer from the same syndrome as Welsh Government, namely "convenient statistics syndrome" or CSS from now on. Let's pick that apart.

£2.7m of public money. Power to 550 homes. According to figures from the UK government, the average annual electricity bill, plus standing charge is about £700. Now, if this project costs £2.7m of public money, and once complete, generates energy for 550 homes, charged out at £700 - it will take the project 7 years to recover the cost, before any income is generated for the council. In fairness, the situation will be longer - running and maintenance costs, staffing etc will mean that the project will probably take 10 years to break even. So it will take that long for the council to make any "income".

Cardiff Council - how about presenting statistics:

In a manner that everyone can understand

Without being selective about it

Without any spin

(we can only ask!!!)

Here at Coch Towers, we have no problem with that - just the way it's spun in the blog post. It reads like "Taaaaadddaa.... the Council is now earning £140,000" - errr, no. That £2.7m of public money needs to be paid back first.

The blog continues about street lights and worries over the brightness: "You don’t have to be concerned about the amount of light emitted from these lower wattage bulbs, as the ‘Street Wise’ bulbs are actually brighter than the traditional yellow bulbs and far more energy efficient" - are they really brighter? It would be nice to be told the luminance value of the lights, before and after, so that we can see the evidence. We accept that they are more efficient, leading to lower running costs. Interestingly, there is a body of evidence that LED streetlights lead to significantly worse sleeping patterns than the orange sodium lamps. Details here

To be fair, we stopped reading the blog at this point - not because there was anything wrong with it - but because it was so extensive. We commend that (we think). However, we are left wondering how Cllr Bale, who earns £53,000 per year from the public purse, has time to actually blog all this instead of running the council. (See remuneration details here)

In what I assume is a statistical or literary oversight as opposed to the more insidious slight of hand, the reported data states: "The consultation revealed 76% of respondents - including Local Authorities, housing associations and social housing tenants - supported the reduction of the maximum sales discount and 63% were in favour of developing legislation to end the Right to Buy."

Without being overly confrontational, this claim is flatly untrue. The link to the raw data substantiates it.

What the raw data says is: "The majority of respondents who stated a clear preference agreed with both proposals 52 out of 83 responses (63 per cent) in respect of endingRight to Buy, 53 out of 70 responses (76 per cent) regards reducing the maximum discount"

The key part of this sentence that has been omitted from the official Welsh Government site is: "who stated a clear preference" - the 76% and 63% are from those who had a clear preference - not from the overall survey responders.

If we analyse the data taking everyone who replied into account, we find that the aforementioned numbers are adjusted as follows:

76% supporting the reduction falls to 56%

﻿63%﻿ supporting the end of right to buy falls to 55%

﻿﻿What looked like a significant majority supporting Welsh Government proposals has fallen to roughly 50/50 - clearly not a glowing endorsement of the proposals.

And whilst we're at it - how many responses from the 3,000,000 people who live in Wales. According to Wikipedia, 22% of the population of Wales is less than 20 years old, so 78% of this 3,000,000 is roughly 2,340,000 adults who could complete the survey.

How many responses to the survey:........ 94, of which only 30 claimed to actually be "social tenants"

Even Family Fortunes claims to survey 100 people to find out what we wear to bed!

Here at Coch Towers we are beginning to feel somewhat manipulated and over spun. We're sure that this "omission" will be claimed as just that, but sadly we fear otherwise.

Here is Cerdyn Coch towers, we despair over headlines like this - well, not actually just the headline, but more that this is actually considered newsworthy on a national level. More than that, 2254 people felt is so newsworthy that they shared it via social media:

In fairness, the story itself is vaguely amusing, but the spin and undertone is that as a Nation (with capital N), we have been cheated out of something - that (a) was somehow representative of us as a Nation; (b) somehow this was an immoral act.

Come on - if we're looking for a campaign piece to drum up public interest about potential immorality there's many more topics we could discuss:

(To be clear, before you read on, this is not a post about the Care and Repair Agencies, but about the political mileage made about the funding from Welsh Government)

In what feels like this is going to become an ongoing series of blogs, we are going to look at the slight of hand, clever language used in this official communication from Welsh Government:

"The continued Welsh Government funding"; the article begins, which immediately begs two questions and an observation: The question: if this funding is continued, what was it before? £1, £1m or £10m - has the funding gone up or down? The observation: "Welsh Government funding", Government is not a benign benefactor, the money is ours that we paid into the system, so please try and make the claim at least sound humble.

"Estimates show every pound invested...."*; who made these estimates, and can we please have a link to the source documentation. Without reference, opinion stated as fact is, well, err, opinion and not open to scrutiny.

In a similar vein, "help transform the lives of more than 40,000 older...."; whilst the number I'm sure is representative of the quantity of people served by this initiative, the word "transform" is highly emotive. Is this claim based on a survey of these 40,000 and their overwhelming feedback that their lives have been duly transformed? Again, as there is not link to the source of this claim, we are left to wonder.

It continues - "As people across Wales live longer, healthier lives...."; longer I can accept, but is it true that we, as a nation are healthier longer into our old age?

"I’m proud the £6 million I have announced today....."; our question remains - "Is this £6m an increase, decrease or the same as last year" - without reference to previous periods, we can't make a judgement over the relative merit of this statement. What if it was £200m last year?

The Minister was kind enough to visit Betty Probert, who had this to say:

"I can’t praise Care and Repair enough. It’s amazing how a few adaptations have changed the quality of my life, enabling me to continue living in my home which I love." - which amazingly has the exactly the same sentiments (and same vocabulary) as the Ministers statement directly above.

In the final paragraph: "£5,468,000 will go to Care and Repair Agencies...." - no problems with that - except there are 22 of these Agencies spread across Wales - is this money split equally throughout Wales?

Overall, we would commend the allocation of public money to protect the dignity and independence of our older generation - but don't lose sight of that fact - "it's public money" and knowing how, where and why we spend it is essential.

Some transparency and less spin please Welsh Government.

* We have lodged a freedom of information request to get to the bottom of this claim.

Cutting to the chase on this one - the story flatly does not make sense and is so full of holes that I am surprised that it actually saw the light of day. Let's unpick it, fact (or not) one at a time:

﻿﻿£7.6m funding boost: dfsdfSounds a large sum, so fair enough - put it front and center in the news article. The word "boost" would imply "adding to something" and "extra to what was initially there" - in politician speak, that would probably be interpreted as "new money"

The subheading proclaims: "The Welsh Government will invest an extra £7.6m every year" - OK, seems clear, the article has clarified that this £7.6m is in addition. But, what does "every year" mean in this context? Does it mean that an "additional £7.6m will be added to the funding for these services, on top of whatever else will be allocated for that year?"; does it mean "the budget for this area will increase by £7.6m this year - and that figure will be maintained next year and in subsequent years?" - and whilst we're at it, how long is the commitment inherit in the phrase "every year" - every year for ever, until the end of time? Every year, till next election? Every year till we change our minds - which might just be next year?

In the head line, the Minister is referred to as "Minister Mark Drakeford" - as is proper and correct. That is who he is, and the role he discharges for the Welsh Government and you, the voter.

The next MONSTER sentence beginning "The additional funding...." flummoxed the readers here in Cerdyn Coch towers - we're all degree educated, all have post graduate qualifications and one of us carries the title "Doctor....of something clever" - but we struggled with this waffle fest.

62 words, 341 characters and 106 syllables

The SMOG index of this paragraph is 27. For reference, the Times, Guardian and Telegraph have a SMOG of around 17 to 18. (see link for details on SMOG). Having never come across a SMOG value so high, we can only estimate that the intended reader is a sixty something university professor who reads this stuff for a living.

Giving the paragraph the benefit of the doubt; we will sum that up as "lots of important shit is going to be done with the money"

"It will also support the implementation of work, which is currently being carried out to make CAMHS more responsive to the needs of young people. This work is being led by the NHS and was formally launched by the Minister for Health and Social Services on February 26."

So, do I read the "make CAMHS more responsive" to mean that currently CAMHS is currently "not responsive enough?" - so, let's get this right... We've always had a Labour administration in Wales, so you're bragging about fixing something that you caused? Mmmmm. The second part of the paragraph ends with "formally launched by the Minister for Health and Social Services on February 26" - Is that relevant to this article and I'm somewhat unclear (or should I say even more unclear) now over where funding is coming from from/going to - is this claimed £7.6m included in the announcement of February 26? Interesting, the Minister is still referred to as the "Minister" at this point.

"The funding package includes £2m announced earlier this week to develop services for young people with neuro-developmental needs....." So, to be clear, this "£7.6m boost" is actually a £5.6m boost as you've claimed the kudos for £2m previously - sneaky!Professor Drakeford said:“The additional funding I’m announcing today will help to drive a range of important improvements in child and adolescent mental health services across Wales..."Notice that it's now Professor Drakeford not the Minister. For sure, he has the honour of that title, but is this an article within the context of his research into social policy at Cardiff University or a political statement within the context of his role as a AM? Claiming the title Professor at this point seems somewhat cynical in an attempt to increase the validity of his subsequent statement.

This final summary is again, somewhat imprecise:"The £7.6m investment child and adolescent mental health services in 2015-16 is part of a wider funding package worth£19.5m, which is being invested in mental health services across Wales by the Welsh Government." So, even though at the start we are told "every year", the conclusion ties this to 2015-16. The "wider funding package worth £19.5m" as it's mentioned in this article, am I to assume that this is also a commitment that will be rolled out "every year"?

To conclude - at best, we found this article confusing and not really sure what it was claiming. Hollow words indeed.

All this talk of £7.6m; don't forget that this is our, public money that is being discussed here - collected from us in tax and spent on services for us. It's not Welsh Government money, it's ours, spent (hopefully) for our benefit.